Attacking dogs
Laura Toms
>In article <53...@nigel.ee.udel.edu> har...@udel.edu (Nancy Hartman) writes:
>>In article <1991May8.1...@newcastle.ac.uk> J.M.S...@newcastle.ac.uk (Jonathan Spencer) writes:
>
>Please bear in mind that Mr. Spencer is the same gentleman who
>treated us to an elegaic description last February of his hawks
>tearing apart pheasants and rabbits. He probably also goes in
>for that game Afghanis play on horseback with the headless
>carcass of a goat.
>
He also donated a brilliant series about two years ago on how to train
your dog. He promotes the use of severe physical punishment in his
training sessions. Those of us who opposed his methods were just a
bunch of naive idiots. Wonder if anyone saved that discussion or even
remembers it...
--
============================================================================
= Laura Toms and Moraine Labradors Dublin, Ohio =
= la...@MorningStar.com (614) 766-6287 =
============================================================================
Richard Wexler
>In article <1991May8.1...@newcastle.ac.uk> J.M.S...@newcastle.ac.uk (Jonathan Spencer) writes:
>O.K., now for my rebuttal to Mr. Spencers biting remarks...
Please bear in mind that Mr. Spencer is the same gentleman who
treated us to an elegaic description last February of his hawks
tearing apart pheasants and rabbits. He probably also goes in
for that game Afghanis play on horseback with the headless
carcass of a goat.
I can't really give any advice to anyone about what to do if a
truly vicious dog decides to attack you. But most dogs that'll
menace you when out loose are not very sure of themselves. I've
found that just the *sight* of even a fairly thin stick, waggled
in their direction, is enough to keep them from coming closer.
--
+ Richard Wexler +-----+ 1-301-405-5538 (w); 1-301-779-6906 (h) +------------+
| Chairman, Musicology | Dept. of Music, U. Maryland, College Park, MD 20742 |
| Department of Music | INTERNET: rw...@umail.umd.edu; BITNET: wexler@umdd |
+----------------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
Damon Feldman
. . . [stuff deleted about the morality of a previous poster] . . .
>He also donated a brilliant series about two years ago on how to train
>your dog. He promotes the use of severe physical punishment in his
>training sessions. Those of us who opposed his methods were just a
>bunch of naive idiots. Wonder if anyone saved that discussion or even
>remembers it...
I'd like to know more about this. Since nobody seems to be
re-posting the series from 2 years back, I'd be interested in hearing
how to use severe physical corrections. Frankly I doubt that there is
much use to whacking puppies with riding crops, but I've come to
respect Laura's opinions a lot, and I'd like to hear about when to use
this type of correction.
Also, I'd hate for people to get the wrong idea, so I hope
there will be a bit more clarification on this.
--
Damon Feldman fel...@rex.cs.tulane.edu
Computer Science Dept. Tulane University, New Orleans LA, USA
Michael Mahler
I THINK there might have been a ;-} missed in Laura's post.
At least I hope there was.
Michael
--
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
What's said above has nothing at all to do with what's
said by the company I work for.
Michael Mahler
>In fel...@rex.cs.tulane.edu (Damon Feldman) writes:
>>In la...@MorningStar.Com (Laura Toms) writes:
>>He also donated a brilliant series about two years ago on how to train
>>your dog. ^^^^^^^^^-------------------------------------------|
|
>Mike Mahler suspects I forgot a :=) but I didn't. |
|
You SURE you didn't want a ;-} (sarcastic smiley face) in |
your posting ---------------------------------------------------|
I'm 99 44/100% sure you were being sarcastic when you called
this training method brilliant, but there are people who
don't know you for the kind gentle woman you are.
Laura Toms
>In <1991May12.1...@MorningStar.COM> la...@MorningStar.Com (Laura Toms) writes:
>
>>He also donated a brilliant series about two years ago on how to train
>>your dog. He promotes the use of severe physical punishment in his
>>training sessions. Those of us who opposed his methods were just a
>>bunch of naive idiots. Wonder if anyone saved that discussion or even
>>remembers it...
Mike Mahler suspects I forgot a :=) but I didn't.
Damon Feldman wonders if this guy had some useful advice.
I'm going on two year old memory here so anyone who had saved these
posts PLEASE repost! This guy horrified all of us on the net by
posting something about some dog of his that growled at him and
nipped him and such, and that was all okie-dokie with him. When the
dog got really out of hand he would beat it. With a leather belt
perhaps? It was very violent and very cruel. When we suggested he
learn alpha rolls and told him that he shouldn't allow the dog to
growl at him when he goes near the dog's food, he told us we were
all idiots. He'd been training dogs for years, he knew all about
dogs, there is nothing wrong with a dog that growls at you, and that
beating the shit out of a dog is a perfect valid way to correct it.
Since then I've ignored everything the guy has contributed to this
newsgroup (and formerly rec.pets). I didn't really mean to post
the above message either, it was meant as a reply but I guess I
hit F instead of R.
Perhaps Terry Hull or Debbie Forest would remember. That was back
in the old days when we used to hear a lot from Wendy Gename and
Terri Hardwick, but I think Terry and/or Debbie might have been
around then.
Debbie Forest
<>In <1991May12.1...@MorningStar.COM> la...@MorningStar.Com (Laura Toms) writes:
<>>He also donated a brilliant series about two years ago on how to train
<>>your dog. He promotes the use of severe physical punishment in his
<>>training sessions. Those of us who opposed his methods were just a
<>>bunch of naive idiots. Wonder if anyone saved that discussion or even
<
i think you wanted a SARCASTIC smiley
<Perhaps Terry Hull or Debbie Forest would remember. That was back
<in the old days when we used to hear a lot from Wendy Gename and
<Terri Hardwick, but I think Terry and/or Debbie might have been
<around then.
yes, i remember it but i didn't save it. nor did i bother to remember the
name it was associated with. but i do remember someone posting about how
his dog would attack him if he came near the dog's food dish, and that was
ok, it just showed his dog was a good predator and willing to stand up for
himself. and he did get real huffy when we tried to explain the error of
that kind of thinking.
Stewart Winter
>posts PLEASE repost! This guy horrified all of us on the net by
>posting something about some dog of his that growled at him and
>nipped him and such, and that was all okie-dokie with him. When the
>dog got really out of hand he would beat it. With a leather belt
>perhaps? It was very violent and very cruel.
I remember it all, although my recollection is somewhat different.
I believe he obtained a dog that was going to be put-down and that
was completely unruly (and aggressive). In order to discipline it
(not sure why) he held it upside down in a garbage can and whipped
it. Said he only had to do it once. Said that the alternative was
that the dog would have been put down.
I'm not passing any judgement here, just summarizing what I remember
him saying.
>Perhaps Terry Hull or Debbie Forest would remember. That was back
>in the old days when we used to hear a lot from Wendy Gename and
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Stewart "only 28 but remembers the old days" Winter
--
Stewart Winter Cognos Incorporated S-mail: P.O. Box 9707
VOICE: (613) 738-1338 x3830 FAX: (613) 738-0002 3755 Riverside Drive
UUCP: stewartw%cogno...@ccs.carleton.ca Ottawa, Ontario
The bird of the day is .... Timneh Parrot CANADA K1G 3Z4
Jonathan Spencer
>In article <74...@rex.cs.tulane.edu> fel...@rex.cs.tulane.edu (Damon Feldman) writes:
>>In <1991May12.1...@MorningStar.COM> la...@MorningStar.Com (Laura Toms) writes:
>>
>>>He also donated a brilliant series about two years ago on how to train
>>>your dog. He promotes the use of severe physical punishment in his
>>>training sessions. Those of us who opposed his methods were just a
>>>bunch of naive idiots. Wonder if anyone saved that discussion or even
>>>remembers it...
I'd already responded to this, but since it seems to be 'flame Spencer'
week ...
[...]
>I'm going on two year old memory here so anyone who had saved these
>posts PLEASE repost!
Ah, the fallibility of human memory is demonstrated once more.
Yes, if anyone does have the posts, please re-post. Then you'll see how
distorted, or if I'm generous, mistaken, Laura can be.
[...]
>all idiots. He'd been training dogs for years, he knew all about
>dogs, there is nothing wrong with a dog that growls at you, and that
I have never claimed to be an expert, but I think ten years working
full time on Police Dog Sections (average 45 dogs each) counts for
something, don't you Laura? I will certainly have made the point that I
know *my* dogs and *you* do not.
>beating the shit out of a dog is a perfect valid way to correct it.
{sarcasm on}
Yup, that's precisely the way I train all dogs. Beat them half to death
and they'll respect you for it. It's the same with wifes, too. A good
hiding is the only thing they understand.
{sarcasm off}
Get real.
Jonathan Spencer
>In article <1991May12.0...@wam.umd.edu> w...@wam.umd.edu (Richard Wexler) writes:
>>In article <53...@nigel.ee.udel.edu> har...@udel.edu (Nancy Hartman) writes:
>>>In article <1991May8.1...@newcastle.ac.uk> J.M.S...@newcastle.ac.uk (Jonathan Spencer) writes:
>>
[...]
>He also donated a brilliant series about two years ago on how to train
>your dog. He promotes the use of severe physical punishment in his
>training sessions. Those of us who opposed his methods were just a
>bunch of naive idiots. Wonder if anyone saved that discussion or even
>remembers it...
>--
>============================================================================
>= Laura Toms and Moraine Labradors Dublin, Ohio =
>= la...@MorningStar.com (614) 766-6287 =
>============================================================================
Tish-tish Laura, that's not quite the whole story, is it? It was a
description of how I used a lead on *one* occasion to coerce *one*
bolshy dog into finally accepting authority. This particular dog, you
may recall, was a rescue dog which had rather too much of his own way.
I also emphasised that this was a *last* *resort* tactic and *not* part
of normal training. But then, the dog came to me as a problem dog aged
15 months. The tactic paid off: the dog is now approaching 8 years old
and is a highly exuberant, and yet, obedient character. It just took
more to get there than with most. Incidentally, he came 1st in a
working trial beating 23 others on 4th May. The first trial he has ever
entered, too.
I don't "promote the use of severe physical punishment in training
sessions" as a matter of course, and I said so at the time. I do say
that using a whip can be a useful tool, as can an electric collar (also
discussed in that thread). And as for saying that anyone who disagreed
was a naive idiot, that also is wrong. I did say that faced with a
persistently anarchistic dog and the choice of using a lead (or riding
crop, say) to inflict pain on a him or having him put down, I am
prepared to use pain. That does not mean beating the dog half to death,
but a single sharp reminder of the cost of direct wilful disobedience.
On this occasion, it worked. It would not have been necessary if his
first - and second - owners had instilled some discipline in him at an
early age.
Since then, about this time last year, I took on another 12 month old
rescue dog (the same breed) that was an absolute anarchist. He followed
no rules - doggy or human - and had been positively taught that he
could do exactly as he wished, and noone could force him to do
otherwise. Initially, he didn't even accept that, for example, 'here'
was a command and not just a suggestion. And even when he did, he had
no intention of doing anything other than pleasing himself. Because he
had no respect for any 'law', he was frequently getting into fights
with other dogs, and yet he was a very amiable character not at all
aggressive. Unlike my old dog, this youngster had a temperament such
that he would not have responded to physical punishment and so, a
different approach was used - stubborn, patient persistence. However,
after 12 weeks, little headway had been made and I had him put to
sleep. Putting a fit healthy young dog to sleep is not a pleasant
matter, and one which is entirely avoidable. Had the previous owner
been honest, instead of stringing me a pack of lies, he would have done
this himself and not passed the buck on to me. No, Laura, I don't
simply beat dogs in order to break them. I will strike a dog if I think
it's necessary, but not out of anger.
In comparison, I have a 10 month old dog which I obtained at 8 weeks
old. Although he very much has a mind of his own, he is highly
obedient and accepts my authority even if he'd *much* rather do
something else. He has never had more than a finger wagged at him. He
hasn't needed it.
So can I ask you this, if you don't like my methods, then criticise the
methods but kindly refrain from personal attacks - they generate more
heat than light.
Jonathan Spencer
>In article <53...@nigel.ee.udel.edu> har...@udel.edu (Nancy Hartman) writes:
>>In article <1991May8.1...@newcastle.ac.uk> J.M.S...@newcastle.ac.uk (Jonathan Spencer) writes:
>>O.K., now for my rebuttal to Mr. Spencers biting remarks...
>Please bear in mind that Mr. Spencer is the same gentleman who
>treated us to an elegaic description last February of his hawks
>tearing apart pheasants and rabbits. He probably also goes in
>for that game Afghanis play on horseback with the headless
>carcass of a goat.
It's a sheep head, actually.
>I can't really give any advice to anyone about what to do if a
>truly vicious dog decides to attack you. But most dogs that'll
If you've nothing to add other than ignorant insults perhaps you ought
keep quiet. If you *do* have something constructive to add, let's hear it.
>--
>+ Richard Wexler +-----+ 1-301-405-5538 (w); 1-301-779-6906 (h) +------------+
>| Chairman, Musicology | Dept. of Music, U. Maryland, College Park, MD 20742 |
>| Department of Music | INTERNET: rw...@umail.umd.edu; BITNET: wexler@umdd |
>+----------------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
..who's position suggests he shoulod know better than resort to childish
name calling.
Michael Mahler
>I'd already responded to this, but since it seems to be 'flame Spencer'
>week ...
I personally don't see it that way at all. You might feel
like you're not getting a fair shake but I also don't feel
you expressed your training situation very well "back then"
or now (see below).
I'd like to say that I feel you should have the freedom to discuss
training methods in this group without fear of personal
retribution, however I don't feel you've given people here
the chance to fully understand your training situations.
>I have never claimed to be an expert, but I think ten years working
>full time on Police Dog Sections (average 45 dogs each) counts for
>something, don't you Laura? I will certainly have made the point that I
>know *my* dogs and *you* do not.
If this is your 'Ace-Up-The-Sleave' I'd really like to know why
you're crying "Blue Juice" for the rottie that bit the foal?
Surely, working with police dogs you'd understand the defensive
drives of rotties or even appreciate that the dog might be
useful in other areas? Police dogs are also rarely driven
into submission and should never be hit with an object
yet you advocate hitting the dog. Why? Am I mistaken?
Jonathan Spencer
>In article <1991May13....@MorningStar.COM> la...@MorningStar.Com (Laura Toms) writes:
><>In <1991May12.1...@MorningStar.COM> la...@MorningStar.Com (Laura Toms) writes:
[...]
>yes, i remember it but i didn't save it. nor did i bother to remember the
>name it was associated with. but i do remember someone posting about how
>his dog would attack him if he came near the dog's food dish, and that was
>ok, it just showed his dog was a good predator and willing to stand up for
>himself. and he did get real huffy when we tried to explain the error of
>that kind of thinking.
Debbie,
I am sorry to see that Laura has taken the matter as rather a personal
(and public) crusade against me. You are *almost* correct in what you
recall, but I'd like to refresh your memory if I may.
I felt (and feel) that physical punishment *can* have a place in
training certain dogs under certain circumstances. I have repeated what
these are to Laura in some email because she appeared to have forgotten
many of the details of the original thread. She has since posted this
email on to the net (without first asking me, which is a breach of
netiquette but by no means her first) so you'll be able to read what
I've said without me repeating it here. Contrary to Laura's recent
posts in which she quite unjustifiably claims that I "beat the shit"
out of dogs and similar rubbish, nothing could be farther from the
truth. Laura was mistaken 18 months ago, and she is mistaken now.
When this thread was discussed (18 months ago, not 3 years) the
consensus of opinion on the net was that one should not beat dogs
simply as a matter of course. I go along with this. That's what I said
at the time too. It should be used only as a last resort.
No, the circumstances you recall are not quite right because the
original thread digressed from discipline to aggressiveness. That bit
first. This dog does growl (which isn't an attack, is it?) at me if I
put my hand towards his food dish unannounced (i.e. as if I'm going to
'steal' his food) when he is hungry and in possession of his food. He
has done this from the moment I got him (as an *adult* dog). However,
if I announce myself by telling him to sit first, I can take his food
from him while he just sits and quietly watches me. Did anyone explain
why is this intolerable; or how is it to be cured? No. Just a load of
flak about how bad I was to accept this behaviour. I got him at 15
months old so he was somewhat set in his ways. He was a rescue dog: he
was a problem dog by definition. Yes, possibly he could have been cured
of it. However, since it's not a problem *to me*, I don't see any need
to cure him of it. But no-one on the net suggested any cure. Nope, just
angry flames. And more of the same now - look at Laura`s recent posts.
The same with the discussion of using a leash or riding crop as a last
resort punishment. Just flames. No real explanation as to *why* this
form of punishment is considered 'bad'. Just flames. No proposed
alternative that hadn't already been tried (i.e.alpha rolling him), no
better means of solving the discipline problems. Just flames. And if
that weren't enough, Laura decides to repeat the process 18 months
later, no advice, no criticism of methods, just flames intended to make
me look a heartless sadistic barbarian. (She says that I "horrified all
of us on the net", and "when the dog got really out of hand he would
beat it", and "It was very violent and very cruel" - how does she
know?, and "he knew all about dogs, there is nothing wrong with a dog
that growls at you", and "he told us we were all idiots", and "beating
the shit out of a dog is a perfect valid way to correct it." etc) Is
that fair, or even called for? It's not even correct!
Debbie, you say that I got "real huffy when we tried to explain the
error of that kind of thinking." That's my point, no-one adaquately
explained *why* 'that kind of thinking' was wrong. No-one *convinced*
me that the use of a whip is unsound or why limited pain should not be
inflicted on a dog to control it. There was a suggestion that it would
make a dog aggressive: it doesn't it makes them submissive and
*obedient* which is the whole aim of curbing persistent willful
disobedience - to get the dog to do what you want him to do or abstain
from something you don't want him to do: to *obey* your commands; to
acknowledge that you are the pack leader - *always*.
Just because I reject the views that *were* expressed in the original
discussion does not mean I am huffy. It means that I reject the views:
I have not been convinced by the argument put forward. In entering into
any debate each side must accept that they may not convince the other
side to their way of thinking. Laura & company did not convince me. My
decision should be respected: it's for me to decide what *I* believe
and not for others to *impose* their beliefs upon me. *Convince* me or
accept my decision even if you don't *like* it.
Laura says I claim to be an expert. I don't. *Laura* claims that I
claim to be an expert. That is quite different. *I* do not claim to be
an expert, but I do have ten years full time experience on RAF Police
Dog Sections and have seen a lot of dogs. So I'm entitled to my view.
Laura also claims that I said everyone was naive. That also is
incorrect. I simply do not accept the arguments that were put forward
which is not the same thing at all. I clearly still don't accept
Laura's values and beliefs. She didn't *convincingly* presented her
case, that's all. (In fact, her recent string of posting have not
presented *any* case.) Laura seems unable to handle the fact that I
will not move my position and hence resorts to the kind of conduct we
have recently seen. That's Laura's problem not mine.
Anyway, I don't intend to lecture you, just set the record straight.
--Jonathan
mpe...@oavax.csuchico.edu
All these exposed fangs and raised hackles! I feel like turning a hose on the
lot of you. Margot
Terry Hull
allowing a dog to growl at you when you don't announce yourself and
approach the dog's food bowl.
J.M.S...@newcastle.ac.uk (Jonathan Spencer) writes:
[Bunch 'o stuff deleted]
>No, the circumstances you recall are not quite right because the
>original thread digressed from discipline to aggressiveness. That bit
>first. This dog does growl (which isn't an attack, is it?) at me if I
>put my hand towards his food dish unannounced (i.e. as if I'm going to
>'steal' his food) when he is hungry and in possession of his food. He
>has done this from the moment I got him (as an *adult* dog). However,
>if I announce myself by telling him to sit first, I can take his food
>from him while he just sits and quietly watches me.
It seems to me that the dog growling is a warning to you to stay from
his food. When you tell him to sit first, you are establishing
dominance before taking the food. In the dog world, I do not see
clearly subordinate dogs growling at their alpha except in play.
It seems to me, this dog is treating you as a sometimes alpha.
This "sometimes alpha" situation is exactly what I have in my house
between my Rottweiler and Border Collie cross. Neither of them is the
clear pack leader. Most of the time, the Border gets her way, but
when things are really serious, I hear this sharp "Woof!" from the
Rottweiler, and the Border slinks away. They almost continually
challenge each other growling and even snarling on occasion for
superiority in little things, like the chew toy that has been on the
floor for a week, and the BC usually wins these confrontations. The
times the Rottie does get serious though, he wins every time.
Further, when we had a 9 month old, rather submissive Rottweiler in
our house as a house guest, he never growled at either of my dogs
except as an invitation to play. Both of my dogs were his undisputed
masters.
I don't consider it satisfactory to be the "sometimes alpha" in my
house. I consider letting dogs growl at you in warning to be walking
too close to the ragged edge of control. As most of you know, only
the very confident dog will attack quietly. Most will bark, growl and
snarl first in hopes of scaring you off. Admittedly growling does in
no way mean an attack will be forthcoming, but with a dog that is the
least bit unsure, a growl or snarl will always precede the attack.
Frankly, I'm quite surprised that anyone with Jonathan's working dog
background would allow their dogs to growl at any time except
designated playtime.
This particular incident was some time ago and is probably no longer a
problem. I'm sure there are other netters who have dogs that respect
the leadership of their owners sometimes and protest by growling at
other times. The topic does still seem to be valid.
--
Terry Hull
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Kansas State University
Work: te...@eece.ksu.edu, rutgers!ksuvax1!eecea!terry
Jonathan Spencer
>BTW: Esa, if your listening to this, I'd love to here your views on
>allowing a dog to growl at you when you don't announce yourself and
>approach the dog's food bowl.
Um, that rather gives the wrong impression. OK, I haven't cured him of
it, but I don't "allow" him to growl.
>J.M.S...@newcastle.ac.uk (Jonathan Spencer) writes:
>[Bunch 'o stuff deleted]
>>No, the circumstances you recall are not quite right because the
>>original thread digressed from discipline to aggressiveness. That bit
>>first. This dog does growl (which isn't an attack, is it?) at me if I
>>put my hand towards his food dish unannounced (i.e. as if I'm going to
>>'steal' his food) when he is hungry and in possession of his food. He
>>has done this from the moment I got him (as an *adult* dog). However,
>>if I announce myself by telling him to sit first, I can take his food
>>from him while he just sits and quietly watches me.
>It seems to me that the dog growling is a warning to you to stay from
>his food.
No question of it, that's *exactly* what he's saying. He's normally fed
on a complete dried food and (these days) he tends not to growl if I
approach, but he stops eating and stiffens. So he's not at ease. But
generally, he's just given his food and left in peace to eat. However,
if he gets fresh meat (e.g. tripe) in his food then he's more
possessive over it. I've seen the same with bears in zoos. If they are
fed a vegetable diet, no problem: if they get meat, they become
possessive and defensive (against each other).
>When you tell him to sit first, you are establishing dominance before
>taking the food.
I don't want to quibble over semantics, but I'm not establishing
dominance, I'm exercising it. He knows I'm boss.
>In the dog world, I do not see clearly subordinate dogs growling at
>their alpha except in play.
Or when he is challanged he might use a stern stare or a growl to warn
off the challanger. I've certainly seen this, but I'm not suggesting all
dogs do it.
>It seems to me, this dog is treating you as a sometimes alpha.
Well, maybe. Under any other circumstances, e.g. out for walks, hunting
etc, there's no question who is boss. So when he's got his food, maybe
he's just behaving like the pack member that's ripped his bit off the
carcase and is defending it from a percieved aggressor. When a pack of
dogs - foxhounds or beagles, say - are at a kill it's every man for
himself. A hound grabs what it can and tries to wolf it down. He's
obliged to defend it or loose it. I'm more inclined to think this is
what he's doing. And yet he's not in the least bit possessive over dead
quarry (which might be expected) he's a really good retriever. And soft
mouthed too.
>This "sometimes alpha" situation is exactly what I have in my house
>between my Rottweiler and Border Collie cross. Neither of them is the
>clear pack leader. Most of the time, the Border gets her way, but
Ah, well in my house the pack hierarchy is: the cat :-), then my wife,
then me, then the old GWP, then the puppy (12 months). And that
situation is clear-cut and unchanging. When my brother brings his GSP
(which I trained and which used to live with my old dog), he slots in
between the old GWP and the puppy. Again, everyone knows their number.
>I don't consider it satisfactory to be the "sometimes alpha" in my
>house. I consider letting dogs growl at you in warning to be walking
>too close to the ragged edge of control.
I would tend to agree. But even if you're correct and I'm wrong, it
only occurs under these circumstances, and so it's not a problem to me.
Ah! Here's a thought. Sometimes the old dog will let the puppy share
his food *if* the puppy approaches on a low belly and the old dog's not
had a hard day's work in which case he will growl at the puppy, or even
snap at him if he doesn't back off. Now that fits the pack behaviour
pattern of hounds. Anyway, let's suppose that the dog should *not* do
this: how is he to be cured? Any suggestions?
>Frankly, I'm quite surprised that anyone with Jonathan's working dog
>background would allow their dogs to growl at any time except
>designated playtime.
I've said, it's not a problem, so why bother? He's growling at me to
leave him in peace with his food. He's entitled to that consideration.
He doesn't do it (to me) at any other time. I don't let them growl when
they are 'sparring' because misunderstandings occur, and that sometimes
leads to sugery :-(
>This particular incident was some time ago and is probably no longer a
>problem.
Oh, he will still do it, but I never really considered it a problem.
He's saying, 'leave me to eat in peace' and that's what I do.
--Jonathan
Jonathan Spencer
>In article J.M.S...@newcastle.ac.uk (Jonathan Spencer) writes:
> I'd like to say that I feel you should have the freedom to discuss
> training methods in this group without fear of personal
> retribution,
So do I. But there are those who will not post in view of the kind of
response metered out to me. (They've said as much to both me and, no
offence here, to Laura.)
however I don't feel you've given people here
> the chance to fully understand your training situations.
What specifically do you want to know? I'll do my best.
>>I have never claimed to be an expert, but I think ten years working
>>full time on Police Dog Sections (average 45 dogs each) counts for
>>something, don't you Laura? I will certainly have made the point that I
>>know *my* dogs and *you* do not.
> If this is your 'Ace-Up-The-Sleave' I'd really like to know why
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Nope. But if I'd mentioned it before, it most likely *would* have looked
like I was claiming to be an expert. Laura claimed that I claimed to be
an expert: some explanation was required.
> you're crying "Blue Juice" for the rottie that bit the foal?
Well, Terry Hull and I have thrashed this one out and it boils down to
differing philosphies on each side of the Atlantic. (At least that's
*my* interpretation, I don't know what Terry's is.) The dog now knows
the thrill of persuit, of prey struggling in her teeth, of the shouts,
and the excitement of it all. The handler was unable to prevent the
attack, once underway, the dog ingored all orders to cease the attack,
and only released after the handler had strangled (her words) the dog
with a piece of wire. Not the kind of experience to teach a dog
self-restraint, just the opposite IMO. Now I agree that *any* dog is
capable of attacking, but this one now understands that it has *power*.
Terry's argument was that that the dog has committed a single offence
and has not really had a chance to learn that such behaviour is
unacceptable. Yes, it might be possible to teach this dog that
attacking without being told is unacceptable but that will require the
dog wanting to launch another attack on something/someone and it
(hopefully) being prevented/stopped in some way. Perhaps by pre-empting
the thought, perhaps by other means. My counter is that if the should
attack again, the consequences might be much more serious than a "badly
mauled foal" (see the thread on pit bull attacks in this country). I
don't consider that the life of one dog - regardless how good a
specimen it might be - is worth a child's face, or worse. Hence I
suggest euthansia. It's what I would do without any question. If, on the
other hand, the dog had simply coursed a rabbit and lost it, then I
would suggest another approach.
>Surely, working with police dogs you'd understand the defensive
>drives of rotties
I doubt that this Rott thought the foal was a threat, more like weak
prey. I don't know the full circumstances, but I doubt if the dog was
provoked other than the stimulus of a hunter spotting a weakling. IMO,
it responded like a *predator* not prey defending itself.
>or even appreciate that the dog might be useful in other areas?
Such as what? Yes, perhaps the dog could be put to use as an attack dog
such as we had in the Air Force. But was not suggested in the post, and
is the net populated by people who know what they are about under these
circumstances and who need an attack dog? I suspect not.
>Police dogs are also rarely driven into submission and should never be
>hit with an object yet you advocate hitting the dog. Why? Am I
>mistaken?
I think you are mistaken. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't remember
advocating hitting this dog: I advocated euthanasia in order to prevent
further risk of attacks. Why should a police dog *not* be struck? How
else is it to learn to press home an attack on an armed criminal? The
*last* thing you want is a police dog (attack dog) to back off just
because it faces some thug with a piece of wood, you want the dog to
pile in and attack. If needs be, it should lay down it's life to save
yours. (*BEFORE* anyone thinks I'm suggesting a piece of 4x2 timber as
a training aid, I'm not.)
--Jonathan
Terry Hull
>te...@eece.ksu.edu (Terry Hull) writes:
>Um, that rather gives the wrong impression. OK, I haven't cured him of
>it, but I don't "allow" him to growl.
I think anything that your dog has been doing for 18 months is being
"allowed."
[Dog growls when you approach his food bowl]
>>It seems to me that the dog growling is a warning to you to stay from
>>his food.
>No question of it, that's *exactly* what he's saying.
>Anyway, let's suppose that the dog should *not* do
>this: how is he to be cured? Any suggestions?
Treat it like any other aggressive growling. I'd start by taking the
dog by the side of is face, lifting it up high enough to take the
weight off his front feet, stare at him and growl. I'd gradually
increase the correction from there on successive attempts at this
exercise until the dog would no longer growl at me.
I'm not saying that you cannot allow a dog to express his opinion. I
have no problem with a dog lowering his head over his food bowl to
protect it from me. I view that as the dog saying, "Please don't take
my food," and I think that is fine.
>Oh, he will still do it, but I never really considered it a problem.
>He's saying, 'leave me to eat in peace' and that's what I do.
A couple of months ago, I was quite thankful I've insisted my Rottie
allow me to take anything away from him that he has in his mouth.
Bear was playing with a tube sock that some friends of mine used as a
play toy for their Aussie and he decided to try to eat it. I had to
reach down his throat and pull the sock back out. Would he have
allowed me to do this if I had not taken away treats, bones, toys and
yes while insisting he not growl at me on many other occasions? I
honestly don't know. I know I'm glad he did not decide that he could
bite me while my hand was down his throat. I've seen what those jaws
can do to rawhide bones, nylabones and 2 by 4's. The bones in my hand
and fingers would not have stood a chance. ;-(.
Michael Mahler
>m...@lectroid.sw.stratus.com (Michael Mahler) writes:
>>In article J.M.S...@newcastle.ac.uk (Jonathan Spencer) writes:
>> I'd like to say that I feel you should have the freedom to discuss
>> training methods in this group without fear of personal retribution,
>So do I. But there are those who will not post in view of the kind of
>response metered out to me. (They've said as much to both me and, no
>offence here, to Laura.)
Let's consider this issue closed.
> however I don't feel you've given people here
>> the chance to fully understand your training situations.
>What specifically do you want to know? I'll do my best.
You've already done so in response to another poster
and it's appreciated.
>>>I have never claimed to be an expert, but I think ten years working
>>>full time on Police Dog Sections (average 45 dogs each) counts for
>>>something, don't you Laura? I will certainly have made the point that I
>>>know *my* dogs and *you* do not.
>> If this is your 'Ace-Up-The-Sleave' I'd really like to know why
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Nope. But if I'd mentioned it before, it most likely *would* have looked
>like I was claiming to be an expert. Laura claimed that I claimed to be
>an expert: some explanation was required.
Expert: X - spurt = old-drip. ;-}
>> you're crying "Blue Juice" for the rottie that bit the foal?
>Well, Terry Hull and I have thrashed this one out and it boils down to
>differing philosphies on each side of the Atlantic. (At least that's
>*my* interpretation, I don't know what Terry's is.)
I'm not sure the difference of opinions is solely one of
UK vs. America, unless of course I'm not aware of some
obvious prevailing wisdoms between the two.
>The dog now knows the thrill of persuit,...
Did I miss something... was there a persuit? Barbara?
>...of prey struggling in her teeth, of the shouts,
>and the excitement of it all. The handler was unable to prevent the
>attack, once underway, the dog ingored all orders to cease the attack,...
This is purely a training issue, and should not be used
as criteria as to whether or not the dog has severly
unbalanced temperment.
>...and only released after the handler had strangled (her words) the dog
>with a piece of wire. Not the kind of experience to teach a dog
>self-restraint, just the opposite IMO. Now I agree that *any* dog is
>capable of attacking, but this one now understands that it has *power*.
Well... I don't think the dog has any new found understanding
of itself, but this is, as you said, a result of differing
points of view, I think.
>Terry's argument was that that the dog has committed a single offence
>and has not really had a chance to learn that such behaviour is
>unacceptable.
He could be right. Or maybe the dog hates baby horses?
...
> My counter is that if the should
>attack again, the consequences might be much more serious than a "badly
>mauled foal" (see the thread on pit bull attacks in this country). I
>don't consider that the life of one dog - regardless how good a
>specimen it might be - is worth a child's face, or worse.
How can I disagree with this?
>>Police dogs are also rarely driven into submission and should never be
>>hit with an object yet you advocate hitting the dog. Why? Am I
>>mistaken?
>I think you are mistaken. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't remember
>advocating hitting this dog: I advocated euthanasia in order to prevent
>further risk of attacks.
You're right, I was mixing threads. Sorry.
>Why should a police dog *not* be struck?
By not striking a dog during training, you don't teach it to be
afraid of objects. For example, I'm sure we've all seen a
dog that's been taught obedience by being hit repetetively
with the hand, especially on the face, and when you go to
pet it, the dog will cringe with fear of being hit. You
don't want the same thing to happen with a protection dog
and you dont' avoid it by trying to get the dog used to it
until he's already learned self-confidence while attacking.
You do get them used to loud noises (whip, gun) and touching
to help with this later on though.
During protection training, and immature dog will gradually build an
intolerance to pain, unless it already has plenty or maybe
not enough (in which case it might not be a good choice
for a protection dog). I've seen this and it's especially
true with my dog, as I've recently learned.
>How else is it to learn to press home an attack on an armed criminal?
Much of this is natural drives being directed properly.
>The *last* thing you want is a police dog (attack dog) to back off just
>because it faces some thug with a piece of wood, you want the dog to
>pile in and attack. If needs be, it should lay down it's life to save
>yours. (*BEFORE* anyone thinks I'm suggesting a piece of 4x2 timber as
>a training aid, I'm not.)
But they sure make good chew toys (kiln-dried of course)!
Jonathan Spencer
>J.M.S...@newcastle.ac.uk (Jonathan Spencer) writes:
>>te...@eece.ksu.edu (Terry Hull) writes:
>[Dog growls when you approach his food bowl]
He's been doing it for nigh on 8 years, not 18 months.
>>>It seems to me that the dog growling is a warning to you to stay from
>>>his food.
>>No question of it, that's *exactly* what he's saying.
[..]
>I'm not saying that you cannot allow a dog to express his opinion. I
>have no problem with a dog lowering his head over his food bowl to
>protect it from me. I view that as the dog saying, "Please don't take
>my food," and I think that is fine.
My dog is saying the same thing, only he backs it up with a growl to
convince me. He sticks his nose over his food, or even onto his food,
stiffens, and then if I come closer without telling him to sit first,
he growls. He doesn't growl at my wife though, he just stiffens and
presses his nose onto his food. But he is a one man dog. He sees me as
his man: my wife is just a substitute.
>A couple of months ago, I was quite thankful I've insisted my Rottie
>allow me to take anything away from him that he has in his mouth.
I can take anything from his mouth, no problems there. He *is* a
hunter, pointer, *retriever* after all :-) He brings anything he finds
to my hand. When we're out hunting and someone else has shot something,
he brings it to me. His problem is the opposite of holding onto things:
having retrieved a piece of game he often spits it at my feet instead
of delivering properly because he can't wait to get hunting for more.
It's also easy to stuff things down his throat e.g. worm tablets etc.
No problems there. I can get him to bring his bones to me and hand them
over on command. He'd much rather not hand them over and he's anxious
as to whether I'll give them back to him, but he doesn't challange me.
Yet if I just walked up to him and tried to take them when he already
had possession especially if I appeared in a 'competative' or
'aggressive' manner he would object by growling.
I think your suggestions would work on a young dog, but I've no
intention of disturbing the status quo by trying it with an eight year
old. We have a set of rules, we both know them, so things are fine.
--Jonathan
Jonathan Spencer
>In article J.M.S...@newcastle.ac.uk (Jonathan Spencer) writes:
>>m...@lectroid.sw.stratus.com (Michael Mahler) writes:
>>>In article J.M.S...@newcastle.ac.uk (Jonathan Spencer) writes:
[lots deleted]
>>Why should a police dog *not* be struck?
> By not striking a dog during training, you don't teach it to be
> afraid of objects. For example, I'm sure we've all seen a
But the inverse does hold. By teaching a dog to attack a criminal armed
with, say, a piece of hosepipe, you are able to test whether the dog is
afraid of being struck. You also teach it to ignore any weapon the
criminal might have. If you don't test, you don't know how the dog will
respond. I've seen trainee dogs back off the first time the criminal
raises a weapon and bellows. It's like someone else said (sorry, can't
remeber who) just because your dog will do a long stay in your living
room, it does not mean the dog has been adaquately taught the long stay.
--Jonathan
Esa K Viitala
>la...@MorningStar.Com (Laura Toms) writes:
>
>>In article <1991May12.0...@wam.umd.edu> w...@wam.umd.edu (Richard Wexler) writes:
>>>In article <53...@nigel.ee.udel.edu> har...@udel.edu (Nancy Hartman) writes:
>>>>In article <1991May8.1...@newcastle.ac.uk> J.M.S...@newcastle.ac.uk (Jonathan Spencer) writes:
>
>may recall, was a rescue dog which had rather too much of his own way.
>I also emphasised that this was a *last* *resort* tactic and *not* part
>of normal training. But then, the dog came to me as a problem dog aged
>15 months. The tactic paid off: the dog is now approaching 8 years old
>and is a highly exuberant, and yet, obedient character. It just took
>more to get there than with most. Incidentally, he came 1st in a
>working trial beating 23 others on 4th May. The first trial he has ever
>entered, too.
>
>rescue dog (the same breed) that was an absolute anarchist. He followed
>no rules - doggy or human - and had been positively taught that he
>could do exactly as he wished, and noone could force him to do
>otherwise. Initially, he didn't even accept that, for example, 'here'
>was a command and not just a suggestion. And even when he did, he had
>no intention of doing anything other than pleasing himself. Because he
>had no respect for any 'law', he was frequently getting into fights
>with other dogs, and yet he was a very amiable character not at all
>aggressive.
I am not flaming at anybody. However, I do not agree with methods
where physical pain is involved. But that was not the issue I
thought of when hitting the `F` key for followup. The thing which
hits me is the usage of term 'rescue dog' in connection of such
problems as described with these two dogs. How come these were
ever accepted as rescue dogs? In Norway a 'Rescue Dog' saves
people and will never be a threat to them.
A 15 month old dog as a rescue dog is another point of remark.
Again, here in Norway, we count at least two years for training up
our rescue dogs. We mean that trying to make the training faster,
results in mental problems with these dogs. But then again, I do
not know what gives you the right to address your dogs as rescue
dogs. Passing the tests I suppose?
Now a dog which is a rescue dog, must have gone thru a considerable
amount of training. I cannot believe that with such a dog one has
no other alternative than the "*last* *resort* tactic" which seems
to have been beating up this dog.
A Rescue Dog must be self-confident. Sometimes it is hard to tell
when they "have too much of their own ways". Basis for a rescue
dog will be built during the first months in the dog's life.
Failing in this, gives one very small possiblities to fulfill the
training. (And take the "exam").
---ekv
--
Esa Viitala, TOLLPOST-GLOBE A/S, Systems Department,
PO Box 100, N6301 Aandalsnes, Norway Tel: (+47 72) 21211 / 264,
Fax: (+47 72) 22161 E-mail: ...!mcsun!nuug!tglobe2!esa
Esa K Viitala
>BTW: Esa, if your listening to this, I'd love to here your views on
>allowing a dog to growl at you when you don't announce yourself and
>approach the dog's food bowl.
discussion develops :-).
Actually, I've met this behaviour with two of my dogs. One
rottweiler (Chief) and one giant schnautzer (Pekka). Chief slept
away a couple of years ago, Pekka is now about 9 months of age. (I
seek for self-confident dogs, I try to make them as independent
as possible. At the same time it is very important to be the one
who is controlling the dogs.)
I was inexperienced when I bought Chief (a rottweiler, male).
Sure, I had had several dogs, I just liked them, without really
knowing much about them. To-day I know more (not much, but some),
I still like them as much as I used to.
Chief was an absolute alpha. No way what I tried, he would always
try to become a leader. I often told people that we had a strange
love and hate relationship: Chief just waited for me to die such
that he could become the new leader. This was what made Chief so
uncertain when it came to food. I reckon that it was his
uncertainty that made him to growl at me. He also growled at me
(and other family members) when he was resting and wanted to be
left alone AND if this wasn't respected. This was his way of
saying: "please let me be". We let him be. Nevertheless, anyone
in the family, anyone he knew, could go to him whenever they
pleased and do whatever they wanted (within limits, of course).
Anyone could go and take his food away from him. When we
understood this, we let him be as he was.
Moral: sometimes we have to accept that not everything that is written
in the books need to be the exact truth. We have to respect our dogs,
too. That is how the life is possible in a pack of wolves (respect).
Pekka started to develop in the bad direction. Food was something he'll
protect. He'll growl and fight for his food. Again: uncertainty was the
basic reason. I started to train him when the food was made ready. I
petted him. Simply ignored his growling. I studied my other dog, a
rottweiler (Taku), how he behaved when he went to Pekka's bowl. Taku
just ignored Pekka. And Pekka stopped growlig at Taku. I did the same.
Got bitten once. I took a firm grip on Pekkas neck and let him know that
I do what I please with his food. For a few weeks I just ignored Pekka's
growling, every now and then taking away his food. Now he trusts me. He
doesn't growl any more at me.
Moral: be patient, do not brake the young dog's self-confidence, but be
a leader whatever it takes (I got bitten :-().
>It seems to me that the dog growling is a warning to you to stay from
>his food.
Yes, and also a sign of insecurity. "Maybe he's coming to take my
food from me".
>When you tell him to sit first, you are establishing
>dominance before taking the food.
Yes, and this is good. You are clearly showing to your dog that you are
the leader. Much simpler in this way than, say, using a whip. But you
should not compete about who's getting the food, you or your dog.
Normally, in the end the dog will get it anyway and who's the winner
then? The food must come as a reward from the leader, not as a result of
a fight which somebody lost and the other one won. Beware about tense
situations. If your dog starts growling, do not stimulate it further by
inviting the dog into a fight. Do something else. For example heeling if
your dog likes it.
>In the dog world, I do not see
>clearly subordinate dogs growling at their alpha except in play.
I see this ever so often with my dogs. I've also registered this
behaviour in documentary movies about wolves. Quite clearly. This
was when I tried to "cure" Chief. Pekka growls to Taku if Taku
comes too close to him and he's got a toy or something. But if
Taku REALLY wants this toy, he can go and get it. Pekka stops
growling and Taku gets the thing.
>This "sometimes alpha" situation is exactly what I have in my house
>between my Rottweiler and Border Collie cross. Neither of them is the
>clear pack leader.
Arn't you the leader :-). Seriously, I have often wondered how
complicated the relationsships in a pack of dogs can be. I, too,
had problems in explaining the behaviour of my two rottweilers (at
the time there were two of them). The younger was physically much
stronger and seemingly used this in many situations. But when it
really came to it, there was no question. Chief was the Leader.
To-day the situation is repeating itself between Pekka and Taku.
Taku tolerates almost anything from Pekka (growling, biting in the
ears and neck, jumping against him, showing dominance in all ways)
BUT when it really comes down to establishing the rank, there is no
question about it. Taku is the leader of these two.
Moral: a good leader doesn't need to (over)react all the time. When the
hierarchy is established the pack is functioning. A good leader in a
pack of wolves is a tolerable leader which doesn't go around showing off
all the time. An alpha wolf respects other members of the pack too.
Currently I am trying to study my dogs in order to find out more
about being consequent. We know that being consequent with our
dogs is important. How come Taku accepts all this alpha play from
Pekka? If Taku was consequent would he not need to react to every
trick Pekka makes at him which is of dominant character? Does Taku
have a limit where he is consequent? Whenever Pekka goes over the
limit, he explodes? So far I have not been able to register any
such limits.
So, back to the question, would I allow my dog to growl at me when I do
not announce myself and I approach the dog's food bowl? My answer is yes
and no. I do not in any circumstances accept that the dog will be a
potential danger. In no circumstances may the dog protect his food
against me or my family members by fighting for his food. Growling is
not the same as fighting and biting. I'll try to get rid of growling,
too. More important than this is, IMO, to find out why a dog is
growling. (Also: one could ask: why must we train our dogs not to growl?
The "why" is important, maybe there is an alternative way to reach the
goal?).
Debbie Forest
>thought of when hitting the `F` key for followup. The thing which
>hits me is the usage of term 'rescue dog' in connection of such
>problems as described with these two dogs. How come these were
>ever accepted as rescue dogs? In Norway a 'Rescue Dog' saves
>people and will never be a threat to them.
>
meaning a dog trained and certified for search and rescue. finding people
lost in the woods and that sort of thing.
jonathon is talking about a breed rescue. this means the dog was given up
by the previous owner who planned to either give it away or have it killed.
jonathon rescued the dog from death by taking it in, and hopefully
rehabilitating it. chances are good, at least in these cases, that the
training the dog received from his first owner was either bad or non-existant.
Michael Mahler
!! By not STRIKING a dog during training, you don't teach it to be
!! afraid of objects. For example, I'm sure we've all seen a
!But the inverse does hold. By teaching a dog to attack a criminal armed
!with, say, a piece of hosepipe, you are able to test whether the dog is
!afraid of being struck. You also teach it to ignore any weapon the
!criminal might have. If you don't test, you don't know how the dog will
!respond. I've seen trainee dogs back off the first time the criminal
!raises a weapon and bellows.
Jonathan,
Please note I'm speaking about striking a dog with a weapon
during training, not just raising it and trying to scare the
dog off the field, like the courage test.
Jonathan Spencer
>In article <1991May13.1...@newcastle.ac.uk> J.M.S...@newcastle.ac.uk (Jonathan Spencer) writes:
> >may recall, was a rescue dog which had rather too much of his own way.
> >Since then, about this time last year, I took on another 12 month old
> >rescue dog (the same breed) that was an absolute anarchist. He followed
>The thing which
>hits me is the usage of term 'rescue dog' in connection of such
>problems as described with these two dogs. How come these were
>ever accepted as rescue dogs? In Norway a 'Rescue Dog' saves
>people and will never be a threat to them.
>A 15 month old dog as a rescue dog is another point of remark.
>Again, here in Norway, we count at least two years for training up
>our rescue dogs. We mean that trying to make the training faster,
oh-oh! Terminology strikes again! In this context 'rescue dog' means
that the dog was being rescued from euthanasia :-) On this occasion the
German Wirehaired Pointer Club's rescue organisation 'rescued' this
dog. The first dog under discussion came to me after he had destroyed a
kitchen. (That's what you get if you take a hunting dog, give it no
exercise, and lock it in a kitchen for ten hours - it finds its own
amusement.) The second dog was ordered out of the house and came to me
when it was realised by the owners that they had completely ruined him.
(Only they weren't honest enough to deal with it themselves.)
Oh, I can just picture it now, a Wirehair with a barrel of brandy round
its neck. :-) :-) :-)
--Jonathan